An Easy Way For Frontier To Balance Modules In April Update

[Old Duck]

This has come up in a few threads, but I think it warrants its own topic. My proposal is simple, both in the statement and in the ease for Frontier to implement.

1) Give ALL ships two new size one module slots.
2) Remove or seriously nerf size one military modules (HRPs, MRPs, SCBs, etc).

This makes size one modules a bit more "specialized", likely to be used for computers and controllers, of which we have too many, and it addresses power creep. Most importantly, it is trivial for Frontier to code into their current update. Thoughts?

 

[Ethaidan]

That doesn't go far enough.

1. Limit HRPs in option slots to one per small ship, two per medium, three per large.
2. Limit MRPs in option slots to one per small ship, two per medium, three per large.
3. Limit Guardian shield reinforcements in option slots to one per small ship, two per medium, three per large.
4. Limit SC banks in option slots to one per small ship, two per medium, three per large.
5. Limit SBs to one per small ship, two per medium, three per large.

Would this affect loads of combat pilots, sure, so what. For the record, every single ship I have currently breaks this and I would have to completely redesign all of them, so what. In the interest of not being able to fly ships that are completely invincible vs NPCs, and changing the hull/shield bloating nonsense needed to just survive, let alone be competent in PvP fights, it would be worth it.

PS or, if this to unpalatable for all the combat snowflakes, make all size 1 optional slots technology restricted - no HRPs, MRPs, etc. Only available for fitting DSS, DC, ADC, Interdictor, limpet controller etc.

 

[Old Duck]

That doesn't go far enough.

1. Limit HRPs in option slots to one per small ship, two per medium, three per large.
2. Limit MRPs in option slots to one per small ship, two per medium, three per large.
3. Limit Guardian shield reinforcements in option slots to one per small ship, two per medium, three per large.
4. Limit SC banks in option slots to one per small ship, two per medium, three per large.
5. Limit SBs to one per small ship, two per medium, three per large.

Would this affect loads of combat pilots, sure, so what. For the record, every single ship I have currently breaks this and I would have to completely redesign all of them, so what. In the interest of not being able to fly ships that are completely invincible vs NPCs, and changing the hull/shield bloating nonsense needed to just survive, let alone be competent in PvP fights, it would be worth it.

PS or, if this to unpalatable for all the combat snowflakes, make all size 1 optional slots technology restricted - no HRPs, MRPs, etc. - DSS, DC, ADC, Interdictor, limpet controller etc.

I don't disagree, but I'm trying to offer solutions that are easy to code, because this update is coming SOON. Your latter option (the PS) lines up with my #2, and I believe this would be easy enough to code into the game by removing size one military modules from the outfitting database (and players' ships).

 

[Ethaidan]

Yes, an easy quick solution would be better... and you are addressing the potential of adding even more slots (which, unless otherwise enforced, I will immediately fill with size 1 G5 thermal HRPs on 5-6 of my ships, then swap the size 2/3 thermal HRPs to G5 HD... yay). But, I'd prefer a slot restriction to removing size 1 HRPs altogether - I (and I assume others) use these in size 2/3 optional slots on two of my small ships as a means of adding armour/resistance while maintaining a decent top speed (ie 790m/s courier).

As a separate update aimed at bloat reduction, how difficult would it be to code module # restrictions? They've already done it with AX weapons, could the same/amnended code simply be applied to HRPs, etc.?

 

[CMDR Cosmic Spacehead]

This has come up in a few threads, but I think it warrants its own topic. My proposal is simple, both in the statement and in the ease for Frontier to implement.

1) Give ALL ships two new size one module slots.
2) Remove or seriously nerf size one military modules (HRPs, MRPs, SCBs, etc).

This makes size one modules a bit more "specialized", likely to be used for computers and controllers, of which we have too many, and it addresses power creep. Most importantly, it is trivial for Frontier to code into their current update. Thoughts?

I like it, but for those of us who've engineered class 1 modules that get nerfed/deleted, I'd quite like a refund on the G4/5 materials I spent. Lol
(Not fussed about 1-3).

 

[Old Duck]

I like it, but for those of us who've engineered class 1 modules that get nerfed/deleted, I'd quite like a refund on the G4/5 materials I spent. Lol
(Not fussed about 1-3).

Frontier should be able to do that. They "refunded" engineering when they removed the ADS by applying that engineering to the new DSS. Speaking of, removing the ADS is precedent for removing size 1 military modules, and I bet the latter will generate way less salt.

EDIT - refreshes thread, sees salt... Oh well, so much for that theory, LOL

 

[Old Duck]

As a separate update aimed at bloat reduction, how difficult would it be to code module # restrictions? They've already done it with AX weapons, could the same/amnended code simply be applied to HRPs, etc.?

Ahhh, good point regarding AX weapons. Personally I think HRPs should only fit in military slots, and Frontier could add an appropriate number of these slot(s) to ships like Sidewinder, Eagle, etc. I'm not sure how hard this would be to code, but it makes more "sense" to me, as I picture HRPs like the reactive armor one adds to a tank. It never made sense how putting rebar in the back seat of my SUV makes it bulletproof.

 

[Aashenfox]

NO!

Either; make then the opposite of milslots (no defense module allowed), or implement some fricking diminishing returns on armor and or more DR on hull resistance (the latter being both more feasible and more effective as a solution).

 

[Old Duck]

NO!

Tell me how you really feel

Either; make then the opposite of milslots (no defense module allowed), or implement some fricking diminishing returns on armor and or more DR on hull resistance (the latter being both more feasible and more effective as a solution).

I'm cool with your proposal, though I thought my #2 was basically the same thing as "make them opposite of milslots". Is there such a thing as a size-1 milslot? If not, then removing size 1 HRP achieves "make them the opposite of milslots (no defense module allowed)," does it not? Or am I missing something obvious?

ps - refresh thread and see my post (with the pretty tank) above yours.

 

[Aashenfox]

Diminishing returns on hull resistance combined with some kind of hrp limit (or Dr on raw armor) would fix nearly everything that is wrong with defense inflation and simultaneously allow mission runners to defend themselves from gankers. This all started with the introduction of milslots.

 

[Aashenfox]

Tell me how you really feel


I'm cool with your proposal, though I thought my #2 was basically the same thing as "make them opposite of milslots". Is there such a thing as a size-1 milslot? If not, then removing size 1 HRP achieves "make them the opposite of milslots (no defense module allowed)," does it not? Or am I missing something obvious?

ps - refresh thread and see my post (with the pretty tank) above yours.

Yeh, sure, but Dr is the key. Then all the problems are solved. Imagine if there was no benefit to add more than 4 hrps... Just imagine...!

 

[Bob Lighthouse]

Ahhh, good point regarding AX weapons. Personally I think HRPs should only fit in military slots, and Frontier could add an appropriate number of these slot(s) to ships like Sidewinder, Eagle, etc. I'm not sure how hard this would be to code, but it makes more "sense" to me, as I picture HRPs like the reactive armor one adds to a tank. It never made sense how putting rebar in the back seat of my SUV makes it bulletproof.

Armored SUV for Sale | INKAS Armored Vehicles, Bulletproof Cars, Special Purpose Vehicles

Looking for a bulletproof SUV? Request a quote from INKAS® Armored, world's leading protected vehicle manufacturer. Contact us today.

inkasarmored.com

 

[Old Duck]

Diminishing returns on hull resistance combined with some kind of hrp limit (or Dr on raw armor) would fix nearly everything that is wrong with defense inflation and simultaneously allow mission runners to defend themselves from gankers.

When I see "Dr", I read "Doctor" for obvious reasons. Do you want me to use my sonic screwdriver on raw armor to weaken it? What is this DR on raw armor that you speak of?

 

[Bob McBobblehead]

If you want so that ships blowup quicker, why not just restrict HRPs, MRPs, SCBs and guardian shield packages to military slots.

 

[Old Duck]

BTW, nobody seems to have a problem with ALL ships getting two new size-1 module slots. Ironically my other thread, which questions where we find this space in a Sidewinder, is turned on its head when we consider a Type-9 or Beluga. If anything, those ships have room for a dozen new size-1 slots!

 

[Aashenfox]

Diminishing returns. E.g. An hrp has 400 armor. Adding a second gives 300 more armor, adding a third gives 200 more armor, adding a fourth gives 100 more armor, adding a fifth does next to nothing.

 

[Aashenfox]

Double post

 

[Aashenfox]

If you want so that ships blowup quicker, my not just restrict HRPs, MRPs, SCBs and guardian shield packages to military slots.

This isn't a bad idea, if all ships had an appropriate number of milslots (at least three), but what would be better is diminishing returns or providing slots that cannot take a defensive item.

 

[krylite]

I'd doubt c1 MRP and HRP's make that much of a difference. Smaller ships that are combat oriented could use more resistances padding as they often have fewer slots. Plus there are caustic resistances, and future gameplay could involve more resistances outside of the current three major ones. FD probably had thought about the different types of c1 modules cmdr's would be fitting into their ships besides the two new newb oriented ones with consideration in the new era. It could even be that certain progress was recently solidified on the 2020 update, so that particular foreknowledge of upcoming details helped FD to go ahead with introducing more of the c1 slots for all ships.

 

[Old Duck]

or providing slots that cannot take a defensive item.

These new slots for autopilots seem the perfect candidate for this.